Chess Improvement

Does this mean that current theory frowns upon 7. e5 (instead of 0-0)? I’ve always played 7. e5 (7… Nxe5 8. NxN Bxe5 9. Bxf7ch KxB 10. Qd5ch).

Well, the following game shows that the compensation for the pawn is most likely not sufficient in this line:

Topalovic,Z (2355) – Cebalo,M (2570) [B21]
Ptuj Ptuj (8), 1995

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.c3 dxc3 5.Nxc3 g6 6.Bc4 Bg7 7.e5 Nxe5
8.Nxe5 Bxe5 9.Bxf7+ Kxf7 10.Qd5+ Kg7 11.Qxe5+ Nf6 12.0-0 d6 13.Qg5 Rf8
14.h3 Bd7 15.Re1 Rf7 16.Be3 Bc6 17.Rad1 Qd7 18.Ne2 Ne4 19.Qh4 e5
20.Nd4 exd4 21.Bh6+ Kg8 22.Rxe4 Bxe4 23.Qxe4 Qf5 24.Qxd4 Qf6 25.Qd2
Re8 26.Be3 a6 27.Bd4 Qf4 28.Qc3 d5 29.Qb3 Qf5 30.a4 h5 31.a5 Kh7
32.Bb6 Re5 33.Rd3 Re1+ 34.Kh2 Qf4+ 0-1

Topalovic-Cebalo.pgn

*******************************************************
Since Black can play Nh6 at any time, including at move 8, why not play it right away? Alternatively, why not block off the Bc4’s diagonal by playing 8… e6, which also has the benefit of reinforcing the f5-square?

*******************************************************

For sure Black can play 8. Nh6 right away. Whether this is better is rather questionable though because White has got other ideas than the pawn push f4 -f5.

I already gave an analysis line in my answer to Scott’s analysis, I’ll repeat it here for you:

[Event "Analysis"]
[Date "2006.02.12"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Dc Gentle"]
[Black "Dc Gentle"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 g6 6. Bc4 Bg7
7. O-O d6 8. Ng5 Nh6 9. Be3 Bd7 10. h3 O-O 11. Qd2 Kh8 12. a3 Ne5
13. Bd5 Rc8 14. Qe2 Qc7 15. Rac1 e6 16. Ba2 Nc4 17. Bf4 b5 18.
Rfd1 e5 19. Bg3 f5 20. a4 a6 21. b3 Na5 22. axb5 axb5 23. Qd2 Qb6
24. Qxd6 Qxd6 25. Rxd6 Nf7 26. Nxf7+ Rxf7 27. b4 Nc4 28. Rd5 Nb2
29. Rc2 Na4 30. Rdd2 Rff8 31. Rxd7 f4 32. Bh4 Nxc3 33. Be7 Nxa2
34. Bxf8 Rxc2 35. Bxg7+ Kg8 36. Bxe5 Nxb4 37. Bxf4 Na6 38. Ra7
Nc5 39. Bh6 Ne6 40. Rb7 Rc5 41. Kh2 Rc2 42. Kg3 Rc5 43. f3 Rh5
44. Be3 Nc5 45. Rb8+ Kf7 46. Kh2 Nd7 47. Rb7 Ke8 48. g4 Re5 49.
Kg3 Kd8 50. Bd4 Re6 51. Rxb5 {and Black could have resigned earlier}
1-0

Analysis-DCGentle.pgn

As you see the black knight and black bishop on the kingside are rather useless during the whole game which is the reason Black loses. 8. Ng5 paralyzes the black game.

I also answered the question why Black may try 8… Ne5.
By attacking the bishop c4 by 8… Ne5 Black wins time to develop his bishop and provokes 10. f4 which is not the best option for White under all circumstances as you noticed yourself already, In the earlier game with 8… Ne5 Black could have tried 13… Na5 followed by 14. Be2 in order to prevent the pawn push f5.

Related posts

• Chess Software for Chess Beginners (0)
• Chess Analysis: French Defense – Middle Game Tactics – Putting Bad French Bishop Into Effective Use Kingside (2)
• Chess Analysis: Fianchetto Variant of the Morra Gambit (0)
• Chess Beginners: Great Teaching Annotation Of a Tal Game (0)
• Chess Analysis: Another Look at Fianchetto Variant of the Morra Gambit (0)

On this simul game I have even less info than Paul’s
methodical dismemberment of Bent Larsen.

I will take some guesses here -
since John Watson hosted Larsen in 1974, Denver visit,
and since 1 b3 became Larsen’s opening in 1971-2
and since Paul quickly became too strong to play in simuls
I will make a rough guess of 1974, Paul being an 18 year old
1800 again.

[Event "simul"]
[Site "Denver, Colo"]
[Date "1973.07.18"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Future IM John Watson"]
[Black "Young punk Paul Nikitovich"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ICCResult "White resigns"]
[WhiteElo "2400"]
[BlackElo "1809"]
[Opening "Nimzovich-Larsen attack: modern variation"]
[ECO "A01"]
[NIC "VO.08"]
[Time "04:30:04"]
[TimeControl "none"]

Denver simul
1974?
White – John Watson 2400
Black – Paul Nikitovich 1809

1. b3 e5 2. Bb2 d6 3. g3 f5 4. Bg2 Be7 5. e3 Nf6 6. Ne2 O-O 7. O-O TN Watson

Theoretical Novelty by John Watson and the best move -
later John followed this up with 30,000 more TNs.

7 … c6! 8. d4 e4! 9. Nf4 Qe8

It’s hard to explain but Paul attacks from “weird angles” -
he sneaks up on you.

10. c4! g5 11. Nh3 Ng4

11 … h6! is best but Paul is eager to start a Fishing Pole
attack before LM Jack Young identified Fishing Pole attacks.

12. Nc3! Qg6

Once again Paul goes his own way instead of 12 … h6! – Fritz 8

13. d5 Nd7
Fritz prefers an immediate 13 … Ne5 but naturally
Paul wants to utilize his dead Queenside pieces.

14. Ne2 c5!!!
Eliminating any Watson counterplay,
good tactical and positional understanding
by the angelic looking boy with long, brown hair.

15. Qd2 Qh5
15 … Nge5!! or … Nde5!! are good but Paul wants to prepare a knockout punch.

16. a3?
Wildly optimistic

16 … Nde5!!!
Watson’s in big trouble.

17. Bxe5 Nxe5!! 18. Kh1 Nf3
Paul had an exclam here in his kiddie scoresheet but 18 … f4!! 19 pawn takes pawn Nf3!! just wins a piece.

19. Bxf3?
19 Qc2 was better but bad.

19 … exf3
19 … Q:f3+!!! 20 Kg1 f4!!! is a killer

20. Neg1 f4!! 21. gxf4 Qg4!!!!!
Way to butch the hook, Paul. Mate in 3.

John Watson resigns. 0-1
——————————————————————

Watson-Nikitovich.pgn

[Event "simul"]
[Site "Denver, Colo"]
[Date "1973.07.18"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Future IM John Watson"]
[Black "Young punk Paul Nikitovich"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ICCResult "White resigns"]
[WhiteElo "2400"]
[BlackElo "1809"]
[Opening "Nimzovich-Larsen attack: modern variation"]
[ECO "A01"]
[NIC "VO.08"]
[Time "04:30:04"]
[TimeControl "none"]

1. b3 e5 2. Bb2 d6 3. g3 f5 4. Bg2 Be7 5. e3 Nf6 6. Ne2 O-O 7. O-O c6 8. d4
e4 9. Nf4 Qe8 10. c4 g5 11. Nh3 Ng4 12. Nc3 Qg6 13. d5 Nd7 14. Ne2 c5 15.
Qd2 Qh5 16. a3 Nde5 17. Bxe5 Nxe5 18. Kh1 Nf3 19. Bxf3 exf3 20. Neg1 f4 21.
gxf4 Qg4

0-1

——————————————————————-

Related posts

• Chess Analysis: More on The Fianchetto Variation of the Morra Gambit (0)
• Chess Analysis: Fianchetto Variant of the Morra Gambit (0)
• Chess Strategies: Predator Meets Wall(Brian) (0)
• Chess Strategies: Classic Steinitz Game Vs Von Bardeleben (1)
• Chess Strategies: Using The Toxic Badger Opening (0)

Guest Article Supplied by MyChessBlog.com

One of the many types of openings, which has gained much popularity and as such played in tournaments by grandmasters, is the French Defense.

The opening has its own relative merits and demerits and the amount of variation and challenges it poses to the players is fascinating.  The challenge in French variation, especially for the black pieces, is the light-squared bishop or the bishop on the queenside.

The initial moves of black in French variation, viz., e6 and d5, literally block the development of the light-squared bishop, and, if not taken care of in the initial stages by way of a sacrifice as part of development, then black is literally handicapped and, if effectively exploited by White, might lead to a loss.

This is one of the reasons for the light squared bishop to be called as bad French Bishop.  This does not deter many exponents of the French Defense variation to play this opening and, as such, the opening has its pride of place in the list of various openings.

Application of effective tactics might help turn the bad French bishop or the light-squared black bishop into a very effective piece and aid in the prospective development and attack of the opponent’s King, especially in the middle game stage.

One of the games played in Bundesliga tournament between two grandmasters is an excellent example for the effective use of bad French bishop, which, at the conclusion of the game, can be rightly referred to as the most healthy and effective piece in the game.  Only thing that needs to be done is to switch the queenside bishop or the light-squared black bishop to the kingside.

Let us analyze this fascinating game, and, at the end, we can conclude with confidence that bad French bishop need not always be bad and can gain its rightful place in black’s armory.

The position of the board after the 15^th move by White is given below:

Move 15

(Black to move)

Black’s light-squared bishop is presently at d7. The pawn at e6 and the Knight at c5 are effectively blocking the movement of the light-squared bishop, and as such, the bishop is passively supporting the c5 and e6 squares. Another cursory look indicates that the diagonal e8-h5 is open and can be exploited and black exactly did that one.

15. …… Be8

16. Bb5 Bh5   Bad French bishop has been moved to kingside

17. Bxc6 bxc6
18. Qd3 Nd7
19. Ng5 ……   White succeeded in breaking away the pin on f3 and now threatens h7 square

19. ….. Bg6   The light-squared bishop, which is now free from the shackles, is used effectively to thwart the threat

20. Qe3 e5
21. dxe5 Qxe5
22. Qd2 d4
23. Ne2 h6
24. f4 Qd5
25. Nf3 c5
26. Qa5 Be4

The position after 26 moves is given below:

move 26

(White to move)

A cursory look at the position reveals that the light-squared bishop of black is no more a bad French bishop and is playing an active part in the game, occupying the e4 square in the a8-h1 diagonal.

The game proceeded further as follows with decisive victory for the black.

27. Nd2 Bd3
28. Rf2 Rae8
29. Re1 Rf7
30. Nf1 Rfe7
31. Qd2 c4
32. 0-1

The black emerged winner convincingly, thanks to the support of the light-squared bishop. This is a good example for transforming the bad French bishop to an active piece in the kingside.

One more important fact that emerges out of this example and in general for players opting to play the French variation is that the light squared bishop should get top priority and should not be allowed to remain inactive.

Guest Article Supplied by MyChessBlog.com

Related posts

• Chess Software for Chess Beginners (0)
• Chess Analysis: More on The Fianchetto Variation of the Morra Gambit (0)
• Chess Analysis: Four Knights Games with Analysis (1)
• Chess Strategies: Bishops versus Knights; Endgame Analysis (0)
• Chess Tips: More Ideas for Gambits Against 1.d4 (0)

Does this mean that current theory frowns upon 7. e5 (instead of 0-0)? I’ve always played 7. e5 (7… Nxe5; 8. NxN Bxe5; 9. Bxf7ch KxB; 10. Qd5ch).

Also, I’ve taken a look at the analysis of the fianchetto line in the Morra gambit, and I have a question for any interested members of the group: why the time-wasting maneuver with 8… Ne5?

For those of you who haven’t read the original message, it gives a short game beginning: 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 g6 6. Bc4 Bg7 7. O-O d6 8. Ng5 Ne5, and from there he continues on with 9. Bb5+ Bd7 10. f4 Nc6 11. Bc4 Nh6. It’s that last move that raised my eyebrows.

Since Black can play Nh6 at any time, including at move 8, why not play it right away? Alternatively, why not block off the Bc4’s diagonal by playing 8… e6, which also has the benefit of reinforcing the f5-square?

Examining those two ideas in turn:

1) 8… Nh6 9. f4 0-0 10. f5 Ne5 11. Bb3 Nhg4 when I think Black is pretty much OK due to the very strong defensive Ne5. (If White isn’t careful, eliminating the e5-Knight could be more trouble than it’s worth: 12. Bf4, for example, loses the exchange: 12… Qb6+ 13. Kh1 Nf2+ 14. Rxf2 Qxf2 -+.)

I should also point out that if White takes on g6, Black will just respond
hxg6; more on that shortly.

2) 8… e6, which at first glance was the move I would prefer, turns out to be markedly inferior to 8… Nh6 and really shouldn’t be played. Black’s castling is delayed AND his d6-pawn is vulnerable; which does look a little sharper than 8… Nh6 because the d6-pawn is vulnerable, plus the e6 pawn’s function of shielding White’s Bishop from hitting f7 is more illusory than real. For instance:, (8… e6) 9. f4 Nh6 10. f5 and if 10… 0-0, 11. fe should win for White.

Obviously, it’s likely that the line I gave for 8… Nh6 above isn’t best play for both sides, because I just wanted to show what happens if White goes for an immediate f4-f5 push. But I do think 8… Nh6 is a stronger challenge to White’s play than Gentle’s … Ne5.

If anyone wants to take a more in-depth look at the position after 8… Nh6 (or any of my analysis, obviously), they’re more than welcome to– heck, I’d be much obliged.

Related posts

• Chess Analysis: More on The Fianchetto Variation of the Morra Gambit (0)
• Chess Analysis: French Defense – Middle Game Tactics – Putting Bad French Bishop Into Effective Use Kingside (2)
• Chess Analysis: Four Knights Games with Analysis (1)
• Chess Software for Chess Beginners (0)
• Chess Analysis: Fianchetto Variant of the Morra Gambit (0)

For quite some time I have been analyzing the Fianchetto variant of the Morra gambit, because current theory offers no satisfying method for White.

But now I guess I found something, look at this sample analysis line:

[Event "Analysis"]
[Date "2006.07.28"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Dc Gentle"]
[Black "Dc Gentle"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 g6 6. Bc4 Bg7
7. O-O d6 8. Ng5 Ne5 9. Bb5+ Bd7 10. f4 Nc6 11. Bc4 Nh6 12. Be3
O-O 13. h3 a6 14. f5 gxf5 15. Qh5 Nd4 16. Bxd4 Bxd4+ 17. Kh1 Bg7
18. exf5 Rc8 19. Bd5 b5 20. Rad1 b4 21. Nce4 Bb5 22. Rf4 Bc4 23.
Nxh7 Bxd5 24. f6 Bxe4 25. fxg7 Bxh7 26. Qxh6 f6 27. Rh4 Bf5 28.
Rf1 Re8 29. Rxf5 Kf7 30. Qh5+ Ke6 31. Re4+ Kd7 32. Qf7 Rc1+ 33.
Kh2 Rg8 34. Rxf6 a5 35. Rxd6+ Kxd6 36. Rd4+ Kc6 37. Rxd8 1-0

The early knight sortie to g5 (8. Ng5) together with the bishop on c4 exerts enough pressure on f7 in order to paralyze the black game.

For a better understanding you might try to answer the questions:

a) Why doesn’t Black try to save the bishop, for example by
27… Bc2 ?
b) Why doesn’t Black take the pawn with 30… Kxg7 ?
c) Can Black prevent the fatal 14. f5 starting the White kingside attack?

Maybe I’ll answer these questions later.
Comments are welcome.

Have fun…

DCGentle-analysis.pgn
——————————————————————–

As for the line you cite in the Smith-Morra Accepted vs Black’s fianchetto setup, in playing through the first few moves of the opening, I was struck by 8…Ne5?! as not being what I would have played “instinctively” to defend the attack on f7, because the Knight is not secure there and can be driven off by a subsequent f2-f4.

I would have preferred 8…Nh6 and after, say, 9.Be3 0-0, although this may simply transpose to a similar course as in the actual game after a few more moves.

My major observation is that Black could defend a bit better and should seek active counter play to “disturb” White’s intentions on the Kingside. The retort…b5!? on either move …14 or … 15 may very well thwart White’s attack. I include my analysis of the game as follows, which includes the answers to the questions you posed:

Dc Gentle – Dc Gentle
Analysis, 28.07.2006

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 g6 6.Bc4 Bg7 7.0-0 d6 8.Ng5 Ne5 [8...Nh6 9.Be3 (9.h3 Bd7 10.Be3 Rc8) 9...0-0 10.h3]

9.Bb5+ Bd7 10.f4 Nc6 11.Bc4 Nh6 12.Be3 0-0 13.h3 a6

14.f5 gxf5 [14...b5 15.Bd5 Rc8 16.fxg6 hxg6 17.Nf3 b4 18.Ne2 e6 19.Bc4 Nb8 20.Bb3 d5 21.exd5 Nf5=/+]

15.Qh5 Nd4?! [15...b5 16.Bd5 b4 17.Ne2 e6 18.Bxc6 Bxc6 19.exf5 exf5 20.Nd4 Bd7-/+ Black intends ...Qf6 and/or ...Re8]

16.Bxd4 Bxd4+ 17.Kh1 Bg7 18.exf5 Rc8 19.Bd5 b5 20.Rad1 b4
21.Nce4 Bb5 22.Rf4 Bc4 23.Nxh7 Bxd5 24.f6 Bxe4 25.fxg7 Bxh7 26.Qxh6 f6

27.Rh4 Bf5 [27...Bc2 28.Rc1(White wants to simply capture,followed by gxf8+ and Qh7#) Bf5 29.gxf8Q+ Qxf8 30.Rxc8 Qxc8 (30...Bxc8 31.Qh7#) 31.Qh8+ Kf7 32.Rh7+!( a lovely deflection) Bxh7 33.Qxc8+-]

28.Rf1 Re8 29.Rxf5 Kf7

30.Qh5+ Ke6 [30...Kxg7 31.Rg5+ fxg5 (31...Kf8 32.Rg8+ Kxg8 33.Qg6+ Kf8 34.Rh8#) 32.Qxg5+ Kf7 33.Rf4+ Ke6 34.Qf5#]

31.Re4+ Kd7 32.Qf7 Rc1+ 33.Kh2 Rg8 34.Rxf6 a5 35.Rxd6+ Kxd6
36.Rd4+ Kc6 37.Rxd8 1-0

———————————————————————-

Considering the Fianchetto line you wrote:

Well, generally I agree with your analysis (after 28. Rc1 White could even win a surplus rook) but I don’t think that 14… b5 can thwart 14. f5 and I don’t think that 15.. b5 is better either (16. Bb3 Sa5 17.exf5 Sxb3 18.axb3 +/-)

After the moves

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 g6 6. Bc4
Bg7 7. O-O d6 8. Ng5 Ne5 9. Bb5+ Bd7 10. f4 Nc6 11. Bc4
Nh6 12. Be3 O-O 13. h3 a6 14. f5 {and now}

14… b5 {would be countered by}
15. Bb3 Na5 16. Nd5 Nxb3
(16…Nc4 {blocking this bishop doesn’t help:}
17. Bxc4 bxc4 18. Bb6 Qe8 19. f6 {+/-})

17. Qxb3 Rc8 18. Bb6
{Main reason: Not to attack the black queen but to clear e3 with a tempo.}

18…Qe8 19. Qe3 e6
20. f6 exd5 21. fxg7 Kxg7
22. Bd4+ f6
23. Qf4 Kg8
{24. Qxd6 would be not so good.}
24. Bxf6
{threatening a devastating 25. Qh4.}
24…Nf5
{forced.}
25. exf5 Rxf6 26. Qh4 h5 27. Nh7 Qe3+ 28. Kh1 Rxf5
29. Nf6+ Rxf6 30. Qxf6
{winning.}

A good way to avoid 14. f4 would be 13… Na5 followed by 14. Be2 and the pawn push f5 is not on the schedule anymore. This shows that 13… a6 might be not so accurate, which brings us back to the start of the game. Why does Black play 8. Ng5 just delaying the more natural looking 8. Nh6? Well, two things:

First, bishop c4 is attacked and has to react which gains time to develop the black bishop to d7.

Second, on the one hand the provoked 10. f4 looks dangerous for Black but is also weakening the white kingside (For example by Qb6 Black has the chance to attack b2 with a check afterwards.) Furthermore Black has chances to prevent f5.

By the way, the idea of 14. f4 is not the only one at White’s disposal if Black chooses the fianchetto variant.

Look what could happen if Black plays 8. Nh6:

DCGentle-re-analysis.pgn

[Event "Analysis"]
[Date "2006.02.12"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Dc Gentle"]
[Black "Dc Gentle"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 g6 6. Bc4 Bg7
7. O-O d6 8. Ng5 Nh6 9. Be3 Bd7 10. h3 O-O 11. Qd2 Kh8 12. a3 Ne5
13. Bd5 Rc8 14. Qe2 Qc7 15. Rac1 e6 16. Ba2 Nc4 17. Bf4 b5 18.
Rfd1 e5 19. Bg3 f5 20. a4 a6 21. b3 Na5 22. axb5 axb5 23. Qd2 Qb6
24. Qxd6 Qxd6 25. Rxd6 Nf7 26. Nxf7+ Rxf7 27. b4 Nc4 28. Rd5 Nb2
29. Rc2 Na4 30. Rdd2 Rff8 31. Rxd7 f4 32. Bh4 Nxc3 33. Be7 Nxa2
34. Bxf8 Rxc2 35. Bxg7+ Kg8 36. Bxe5 Nxb4 37. Bxf4 Na6 38. Ra7
Nc5 39. Bh6 Ne6 40. Rb7 Rc5 41. Kh2 Rc2 42. Kg3 Rc5 43. f3 Rh5
44. Be3 Nc5 45. Rb8+ Kf7 46. Kh2 Nd7 47. Rb7 Ke8 48. g4 Re5 49.
Kg3 Kd8 50. Bd4 Re6 51. Rxb5 {and Black could have resigned earlier}
1-0

As you can see the character of this line is more positional where Black gets more and more contained and has to resign finally. Black’s kingside bishop and knight haven’t got any influence on the game before they are eliminated in the end. This is the real reason why 8. Ng5 is so strong.

Related posts

• Chess Analysis: More on The Fianchetto Variation of the Morra Gambit (0)
• Chess Analysis: French Defense – Middle Game Tactics – Putting Bad French Bishop Into Effective Use Kingside (2)
• Chess Analysis: Paul Nikitovich Crushes Future IM John Watson in Simul 35 Years Ago (0)
• Chess Training: Kings Gambit Accepted — Fischer’s Move (10)
• Chess Tips: More Ideas for Gambits Against 1.d4 (0)